PS4 has 8 GB OF GDDR5 RAM

i-Lo said:
Could you imagine if Sony comes out tomorrow and say it was a typo (that it was 4GB) or a few months down the line saying the yields are not good enough to continue or that it will be delayed by 6 months?

I am just scaring myself but what if...
Click to expand...
All I want to know is how much RAM the games they showed are working with. Do we know that?
Zeliard said:
One of the Naughty Dog programmers appeared to express surprise:

https://twitter.com/mrengstad/status/304418354351988736
Click to expand...
Ew. Look at that twat respond to him. Really, guy?
 
DragonSworne said:
Ugh, RAM has little to do with graphical capabilities. The PS4 still has the same graphics card even if it has more RAM to play with.

All this means is developers can store more in memory without the need to load from the disc.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure RAM (vRAM) allows higher resolution textures to be used. Since this is unified RAM, that could be a big difference.

Any just maybe with that much RAM, next gen Mass Effect will have enough memory to store animations for players to roll *and* holster their weapons.
 
HyperionX said:
Then you are simply streaming textures. Better to have a SSD for that purpose in every machine than this.
Click to expand...


There is a HDD in every machine (not sure if SSD) that can stream information to the ram faster than direct from the BD drive.

It is better to have a large pool of fast ram as it is infinitely faster to access the data from that pool than have a smaller pool that constantly needs to request info from slower storage.



The 8 gig will be used and will make a difference, in fact if it is not such a big deal ..... why have devs been crying for more ram and why did adding another 256 to the Xbox 360 make such a big difference to how Gears of War looked?
 
Log4Girlz said:
I've read that graphics in general are not anywhere near as latency sensitive as general compute functions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

But graphics are only one part of a complete game. There is still a lot of things that need to run from the CPU (the actual gameplay code, AI, input, audio processing, networking, physics (though portions of physics can be GPU accelerated), etc).

Basically, I'm just trying to say that I think people should stop thinking that there's a clear cut increase going from DDR3 to GDDR5. They're just different sides of the same coin (and just to reiterate in case people don't read my original post, GDDR5 is a form of DDR3 memory).
 
Jburton said:
Cost to make does not to into account profit margins for the manufacturer / designers / R & D costs etc.


Why does a GTX 670 cost £300 if it only costs a third or less to make?
Click to expand...

Mostly a fatter profit margin more than anything else. If you're not dealing with that issue, then a top of the line GPU would have been a much bigger boost to graphics than 8GB of RAM.

I cannot conceive of any reason why Sony did this other than pure desperation. It provides little benefit relative to cost vs the alternatives.
 
SPE said:
680 has 2-4GB GDDR5
690 has 4-6GB GDDR5

No GFX card ever has had 8GB GDDR5.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant comparison, since the PS4 will be reserving a portion of memory for background tasks, and then splitting the remaining pool for resources that the CPU wants as well as GPU. It will not have 8GB of video memory for a given game. Soon, the GeForce Titan will be releasing with 6GB of GDDR5 memory, which will be more VRAM than a given game on PS4 will have to work with. The GPU itself on Titan is, needless to say, blowing the two upcoming consoles out of the water more than just the difference in memory would suggest. Of course, the 660 Ti already spanks it on the Tflop count anyway, a much more modest and inexpensive card than Titan.

I suspect that adding more memory (8GB is fantastic and more than we ever expected) was something they could do that would increase cost and board complexity, but would not break the TDP hard limits in the same way that including a beefier processor and GPU would have. The "ratio" of processing power to memory is simply different for the PS4 than it is for PC graphics cards - far more memory per unit of processing power. The memory quantity is extremely high end, while GPU performance is not.

Also as a note, the 690 does "really" have 6GB of memory, because it's a dual GPU setup and it's more like "2x 3", with each GPU having identical memory contents, and thus half of the memory being wasted.
 
The unified memory is the real clincher here. I wonder if PC ports will have to be hindered in any way as our CPUs don't have access to memory nearly that fast.
 
Jburton said:
So how come when increasing graphical detail in a PC game does my VRAM consumption increase?

Also I understand it is that specific part of the GPU that processes texture information for display but having fast ram in a large pool also allows for greater amounts of more detailed texture data to be feed to the GPU for processing.
Click to expand...

Things like MSAA or FSAA will cause the RAM usage to increase because you are effectively taking the image and rendering them at higher resolutions so they can be downsampled to remove aliasing.
 
Jburton said:
You don't need to have all the ram filled to start playing as more assets are streamed on to ram while you are playing.

You don't have to wait on all 8 gig of ram to be filled before you start playing.
Click to expand...

Plus the fact that you would probably have the option to do an install so that you don't have to load the data from the slow Blue ray drive but directly from the HDD.
 
DragonSworne said:
Things like SMAA or FSAA will cause the RAM usage to increase because you are effectively taking the image and rendering them at higher resolutions so they can be downsampled to remove aliasing.
Click to expand...


So greater RAM facilitates greater visual fidelity then.

Thank you that's what we have been saying all along.
 
HyperionX said:
Mostly a fatter profit margin more than anything else. If you're not dealing with that issue, then a top of the line GPU would have been a much bigger boost to graphics than 8GB of RAM.

I cannot conceive of any reason why Sony did this other than pure desperation. It provides little benefit relative to cost vs the alternatives.
Click to expand...


Pure desperation?

Really, that's the only reason?


Come on.
 
Jburton said:
So greater RAM facilitates greater visual fidelity then.

Thank you that's what we have been saying all along.
Click to expand...



There is a performance hit of course. If the GPU is capable of sampling higher frames without taking a significant hit in processing time then awesome. If not, will you want to sacrifice FPS for less jaggies?
 
Jburton said:
There is a HDD in every machine (not sure if SSD) that can stream information to the ram faster than direct from the BD drive.

It is better to have a large pool of fast ram as it is infinitely faster to access the data from that pool than have a smaller pool that constantly needs to request info from slower storage.
Click to expand...

Remarkably, even HDDs can't speed up load times that much. Real world HDDs pretty much max out at around 300-400 Mbps. Maybe double that if it is sequential reads, but that would mean coders will have to be very careful about how the install works. So you'll still have real world load times in the 3-5 minute ranges, and maybe 1-2 minutes for the best coded games, assuming games use the whole memory bank. That's still going to be really painful for the average gamer.

The 8 gig will be used and will make a difference, in fact if it is not such a big deal ..... why have devs been crying for more ram and why did adding another 256 to the Xbox 360 make such a big difference to how Gears of War looked?
Click to expand...

Of course it will add something. But there are cheaper ways of improving the experience than this. A mandatory SSD would cost less and improve just about every facet of the experience of this machine.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
Purely based on flops (note: this is not an accurate way of comparing them but its simple) it would be more like a 660 (not 660ti).
Click to expand...

In a closed box a straight comparison with a PC graphics card is not really accurate.


2005 PC ain't running half the shit that 360 and PS3 run today.

My 670 based will struggle in a year or two to keep up with the closed box systems.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
Purely based on flops (note: this is not an accurate way of comparing them but its simple) it would be more like a 660 (not 660ti).
Click to expand...

Do you reckon the GPU will get more 2GB apportioned to it for most games at the end of the day (at least for the first year or so)?

And any guesses on how much the devs may actually get to use of that 8GB for games?

Jburton said:
Pure desperation?

Really, that's the only reason?


Come on.
Click to expand...

After what I have learned on GAF pertaining to GAFxperts, most of these things sound like they are coming from the other hole. I'd just leave people to speculate and bang their head against wall trying to rationalize their own conclusion.
 
Jake Tower said:
Pretty sure RAM (vRAM) allows higher resolution textures to be used. Since this is unified RAM, that could be a big difference.

Any just maybe with that much RAM, next gen Mass Effect will have enough memory to store animations for players to roll *and* holster their weapons.
Click to expand...

well you have hi-res texture on pc too nowadays,it's just that vram allow for eye candy's(effects).Today we have 2gb average on vram so...6gb is enormous amount of eye candy.
 
HyperionX said:
Remarkably, even HDDs can't speed up load times that much. Real world HDDs pretty much max out at around 300-400 Mbps. Maybe double that if it is sequential reads, but that would mean coders will have to be very careful about how the install works. So you'll still have real world load times in the 3-5 minute ranges, and maybe 1-2 minutes for the best coded games, assuming games use the whole memory bank. That's still going to be really painful for the average gamer.



Of course it will add something. But there are cheaper ways of improving the experience than this. A mandatory SSD would cost less and improve just about every facet of the experience of this machine.
Click to expand...


Why do these issues not affect PC gaming, even when running off of a normal HDD my load times are vastly quicker than 3 - 5 minutes.

Don't understand why these issues suddenly appear on a console.
 
bgassassin said:
I have no problem admitting I was wrong. I never expected anyone to pursue 8GB of GDDR5. I hope that doesn't hurt them too much cost wise.
Click to expand...

Good on you for showing up, takes guts to say you were wrong. Too many people just deny and spin in arguments and debates, few actually admit they were wrong in a nice way.
 
i-Lo said:
After what I have learned on GAF pertaining to GAFxperts, most of these things sound like they are coming from the other hole. I'd just leave people to speculate and bang their head against wall trying to rationalize their own conclusion.
Click to expand...

Unless they have a stunning bargin basement deal on GDDR5 chips, they did something that will cost them a small fortune to pull off. It's hard to come up with a reason for that that doesn't involve highly irrational thinking.
 
Jburton said:
In a closed box a straight comparison with a PC graphics card is not really accurate.


2005 PC ain't running half the shit that 360 and PS3 run today.

My 670 based will struggle in a year or two to keep up with the closed box systems.
Click to expand...

yeah but i just wanted a straight comparison. When the system is optimized and a couple of years into its life cycle i think we could expect gtx690 levels of performance.
 
HyperionX said:
Unless they have a stunning bargin basement deal on GDDR5 chips, they did something that will cost them a small fortune to pull off. It's hard to come up with a reason for that that doesn't involve highly irrational thinking.
Click to expand...

You have to be the most pissed person in the world about this RAM.
 
Jburton said:
Why do these issues not affect PC gaming, even when running off of a normal HDD my load times are vastly quicker than 3 - 5 minutes.

Don't understand why these issues suddenly appear on a console.
Click to expand...

You only have 1-2 GB of game data for most PC games. Bump that up to 8GB and you can figure how it's going to end up.

Log4Girlz said:
AHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE. Sure, no one asked.
Click to expand...

I'll change my wording then: No one would have asked for 8GB of unified GDDR5 RAM. Better?
 
Sorry if this has been asked/discussed already, but will part of the 8GB have to be reserved for all the sharing/streaming stuff? (Like constantly recording your last however many minutes of gameplay in case you decide to share it?)
 
Great Puma said:
Sorry if this has been asked/discussed already, but will part of the 8GB have to be reserved for all the sharing/streaming stuff? (Like constantly recording your last however many minutes of gameplay in case you decide to share it?)
Click to expand...

Yes. It will have its own dedicated processor though if I am correct for all the sharing/streaming component.
 
HyperionX said:
You only have 1-2 GB of game data for most PC games. Bump that up to 8GB and you can figure how it's going to end up.



I'll change my wording then: No one would have asked for 8GB of unified GDDR5 RAM. Better?
Click to expand...

Epic for certain and Crytek most likely did.
 
DBT85 said:
You have to be the most pissed person in the world about this RAM.
Click to expand...

Because it's a totally crazy thing to do. It's straight out of Ken Kutaragi's book.

No skin off my back, but don't be shocked if PS4 launches at 499-599 again and no one ends up using the 8GB of RAM meaningfully through its entire life.
 
HyperionX said:
Unless they have a stunning bargin basement deal on GDDR5 chips, they did something that will cost them a small fortune to pull off. It's hard to come up with a reason for that that doesn't involve highly irrational thinking.
Click to expand...

That small fortune is ensuring a great and steady relationship with supplier.

I'm shocked that there are people who are arguing 8GB RAM.

2GB RAM? LOL SONY IS FUCKED
8GB RAM? LOL SONY IS FUCKED
 
For the more technically inclined in this thread: Is or will the blu-ray drive speed prove to be a bottleneck for RAM we have to work with here? Is 8GB overkill?
 
the question is how much the "share" feature will need. I think that will cost a lot of memory to keep running in the back ground. I fear that feature to be honest, it'll probably just soak up to much resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

If the 40 GB RAM rumors for the PS6 are true, PC gamers are in big trouble
9 10 11 12 13
646
3K
Hudo replied
[Wccftech] PlayStation Handheld to Feature AI Upscaling, 16 GB LPDDR5X RAM, and 16 MB MALL to Offset Lower Memory Bandwidth Compared to Base PS5
Rumor  2 3 4 5
226
3K
diffusionx replied
IGN: Ghost of Yotei: 8 Biggest Changes From Tsushima
News Spoilers 
7
54
GymWolf replied
Sword of the Sea (Recommended, Skill Up) - out 8/19
39
689
Humdinger replied
  • Poll
One of Them Has to Go
Poll  2 3 4 5 6
270
2K
ecosse_011172 replied
Top Bottom